Hernandez v. 1082 K & J Laundromat Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:23-cv-02317
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hernandez v. 108 K & J Laundromat Corp., Judge Parker approved the parties’ labor-law settlement and ordered the clerk to close the case.
Anastacia Hernandez, 108 K & J Laundromat Corp., Pascual Soto, and Hernandez’s counsel were affected by the court’s approval of their proposed settlement and closure of the case.
What happened
In Hernandez v. 108 K & J Laundromat Corp., Anastacia Hernandez sued 108 K & J Laundromat Corp. and Pascual Soto under federal and New York wage laws. The parties reached an agreement after mediation through the court’s mediation program.
The court reviewed the proposed settlement and found it fair, reasonable, and adequate to address Hernandez’s claims and pay her lawyers’ fees. The order did not include the settlement’s terms or state that the court would keep authority to enforce the agreement.
Judge Katharine H. Parker approved the settlement and directed the clerk to close the case. The order stated that approving the settlement did not itself mean the court retained authority to enforce it.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. 1082 K & J Laundromat Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-02317
- Katharine Parker
- Feb. 7, 2024
Background
Anastacia Hernandez brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against 108 K & J Laundromat Corp. and Pascual Soto, individually. The parties consented to the court’s authority to decide the case. After reaching an agreement in principle, they submitted a proposed settlement for judicial approval. The opinion states that the parties negotiated at arm’s length after mediating through the court’s mediation program.
Court’s Ruling
The court approved the proposed settlement. It found that the settlement’s terms were fair, reasonable, and adequate both to address Hernandez’s claims and to compensate her counsel for legal fees. The approval followed the required judicial fairness review of settlements under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court expressly stated that the order did not incorporate the settlement’s terms. It also stated that the settlement did not provide that the court would retain authority to enforce the agreement, and that the court made no independent decision to retain that authority. The clerk was directed to close the case on the court’s docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.